Defensiveness is a signal that you’re not confident in your innocence because you feel the need to defend it, thus there might be some question as to whether you’re guilty, thus it’s evidence that raises the odds that you are guilty. After all, if you weren’t guilty, you wouldn’t need to defend yourself, so defending yourself must make it more likely that you are guilty, even if you aren’t. I think this is just normal conservation of evidence, even if it doesn’t logically follow that defending oneself implies guilt.
After all, if you weren’t guilty, you wouldn’t need to defend yourself
This seems wrong to me? If someone says “X abused me” and X says nothing to defend themselves or refute it, people are likely to take the lack of a defense as an admission of guilt.
Defensiveness isn’t proof that someone isn’t confidence in their innocence, because as you say, “it’s enough for them to be afraid that others might believe them guilty”. At the same time, what justifies that fear?
Say you bump into someone in public and they act like you’re a jerk for it. You could react defensively and say “I’m not a jerk, YOU are a jerk you jerk!”. Or you could just say “I’m sorry about that. Are you okay? I screwed up by looking the other way because I heard someone call my name, and I hadn’t seen you there. I guess I need to stop before looking in the future, even if the path looks clear.”
The latter isn’t “defensive” and also does nothing to defend against the accusations directly. But by owning up to everything you can find that you did wrong, you’re demonstrating that you’re not a jerk. And in the process of doing that, it necessarily comes out that “everything you did wrong” isn’t much, and that the other fool walked in front of you without looking himself. So now he looks like a jerk, and you look innocent. Which obviously was what was going to happen, since we knew from the start that you’re not a jerk so of course that’s what the evidence is going to point to. The difference is between “Don’t listen to that! The evidence will mislead you!” and “The totality evidence can’t make me look bad unless I am bad, so lets look at the evidence”.
When someone is showing you a fear that looking at the evidence will leave you thinking they’re bad, this implies a belief that they are indeed bad—at least by your interpretation, which is obviously the one that matters to you.
This belief isn’t necessarily reflectively coherent, and people often flinch out of insecurity even when their beliefs would predictably cohere to “innocent”, but it’s also not crazy to see someone implying that you might think they’re guilty if you were to look at the evidence, and take this as (imperfect) evidence of guilt. Because the only way that fear can be reflectively stable is if they are guilty. It just depends on the extent to which you can expect the person to have noticed the problems with their own belief structure and have brought them back into coherence, if innocent.
When someone is showing you a fear that looking at the evidence will leave you thinking they’re bad, this implies a belief that they are indeed bad—at least by your interpretation, which is obviously the one that matters to you. [...]
Because the only way that fear can be reflectively stable is if they are guilty.
I think this is assuming that the people looking at the evidence can be trusted to make a fair and impartial assessment of it and not jump to any unjustified conclusions?
I do agree that if someone has strong reasons to believe that, and to believe that nobody will be motivated to take any of the information out of context and paint them in a bad light later, etc., then hiding information only makes sense if you are in fact guilty.
But it’s very often the case that people don’t have reason to feel that secure, and have cause to believe that at least part of their audience will jump to conclusions, have all kinds of hostile motives, be inclined to treat one party’s word as intrinsically more trustworthy than the other’s, not have the time or interest to really think it through, etc..
In the kinds of examples that I gave in the original post where I’d gotten defensive despite not feeling guilty, it was exactly because the other party gave signs that they were not inclined to consider the evidence in a balanced way—if they wanted to listen to it at all.
Even if a person I’m talking to trusts me to fairly consider the evidence, if there are any other people witnessing the conversation, those others might still have hostile motives, making my interlocutor defensive. So it’s not even the case that they necessarily expect the evidence to make them look bad by my interpretation, they can expect it to make them look bad by someone else’s interpretation.
I think this is assuming that the people looking at the evidence can be trusted to make a fair and impartial assessment of it and not jump to any unjustified conclusions?
Not so much “assuming” as “working to make sure”.
For example, imagine some cookies go missing from the cookie jar, and you immediately jump to the unjustified conclusion that it’s *me* that took the cookies. Maybe because you already dislike me for being too messy of a roommate or something. This doesn’t force me to respond defensively, and I still have the option of responding with genuine curiosity “Wait, what? What leads you to think it was me?”.
What’s your response? Not “I have security camera footage proving it”. Maybe “It’s just the kind of thing you’d do. You’re the one here who doesn’t respect rules”. But I can keep chasing this down, so long as I’m curious: “I don’t follow. Why is this something you think I’d do? What rules?”. Maybe from there to “Wait, you thought that was a *rule*, not a *request* to be less messy?”, which gets quite a bit harder for you to hold onto if indeed there never was any rule. Maybe “Do you actually think that messiness is correlated with thievery, even after conditioning on honesty? Do you think you have reason to believe I’m dishonest?”.
So long as I’m genuinely trying to understand your perspective and not trying to make you look stupid and not credible, it’s hard to avoid getting into why you believe what you believe, and learning whether your initial conclusions were fair, impartial, and justified. Basically, by maintaining strict openness to the evidence, it takes away any motivation and justification you might have had for being unfair to me.
But it’s very often the case that people don’t have reason to feel that secure, and have cause to believe that at least part of their audience will jump to conclusions, have all kinds of hostile motives, be inclined to treat one party’s word as intrinsically more trustworthy than the other’s, not have the time or interest to really think it through, etc..
Yes, this is often the case, and it does make navigating these things securely quite difficult at times. This complicates things, but I don’t think it changes the conclusion at all.
I think the first thing to note here is that the bar isn’t “Is there zero chance of secure response failing to exonerate me?” but “Is the secure response less likely to exonerate me?”. Because you can’t ever guarantee zero chance of anything, and the question you actually have to decide on is “Which is my better option here?”.
And when you judge by that bar, defensive insecurity doesn’t come out looking too hot. Because none of those additional difficulties go away just because you flinch defensively. If you proclaim “I didn’t do it! Don’t believe him!” to a hostile audience, for example, that’s not going to automatically cause your audience’s hostile motives to melt away and think “Ah, he didn’t do it!”. In addition to all their other ammunition, now they have “See, he’s getting defensive about it. Guilty conscience!”.
Beyond that, we’d have to get into what’s driving this hostility and these unfair jumps to conclusions—because it’s something. Returning to the cookie jar hypothetical, maybe if I would have been more clearly open to your upset about the mess, it never would have gotten to where you were accusing me of taking cookies from the cookie jar in the first place.
It just depends on the extent to which you can expect the person to have noticed the problems with their own belief structure and have brought them back into coherence, if innocent.
Quoting my previous conclusion here, I don’t think you can actually expect people to notice and fully cohere their belief structures, in general. It’s really hard, and a lot of work, so the default expectation is that there will be quite a lot of ultimately unfounded insecurity driving defensiveness over true innocence.
At the same time, the end of the road of reflection is still security and openness about the evidence when truly innocent and well intentioned. And that matters both because it’s the trail sign to follow when we find ourselves innocent and insecure, and because it’s the trail to help others down when we suspect they are.
Basically, by maintaining strict openness to the evidence, it takes away any motivation and justification you might have had for being unfair to me.
Am I missing some context here? Let’s look at this hypothetical conversation, which seems pretty darn plausible to me:
“Wait, you thought that was a rule, not a request to be less messy?”
“What the hell kind of nitpick is that? Stop arguing stupid semantics! Since when should I even have to ask Your Highness for basic decency?”
“Do you actually think that messiness is correlated with thievery, even after conditioning on honesty?”
“What are you even talking about now? Some math shit? That’s what’s really important to you, huh, rather than being a good person who knows when to clean up? Grow up or go live on the street. And don’t take any more of my cookies.”
This is admittedly a strained use of the specific quotations, but I think the directional picture should be clear. Extrapolate to your (least) favorite contested-valence social markers to taste.
I think the first thing to note here is that the bar isn’t “Is there zero chance of secure response failing to exonerate me?” but “Is the secure response less likely to exonerate me?”.
Surely this depends on your surroundings?
What is the “secure response”? One where you try outwardly to retain a certain kind of dignity? When you don’t actually have the status security in local social reality, you can’t necessarily get away with that. In the inconvenient world that I’m currently imagining from which I generated the above dialogue, screwing around with things like ‘evidence’, or even acting calm (thus implying that the rules (which every non-evil person can infer from their heart, right?) are not a threat to you or that you think you’re above them—see also, some uses of “god-fearing” as a prerequisite for “acceptable” in religious contexts), is breaking the social script. It’s presumed to be trying to confuse matters or go around the problem (the problem that they have with you; think “skipping out on your court date” as an analogy in a less emotional context), and it gets you the most guaranteed negative judgment because you didn’t even meta-respect what was going on. Your mainline options under that kind of regime can be more like “use a false apology to submit, after which the entire social reality is that You Did It but at least you showed some respect” or “make a counterplay by acting openly defensive, which acts kind of like a double-or-nothing coin flip depending on whether the audience both believes you and believes enough others will believe you to coordinate against the accuser”. (In this context, the audience may culturally share the felt-sense of “don’t try to get all fancy on us” even if their beliefs about your specific guilt may vary.) Naturally, as Kaj_Sotala described above, refusing to say anything at all can be interpreted as a tacit admission, so that doesn’t help either.
Maybe you could say that the type of emotional and motivational backing for what “acting defensive” means in that context is substantially different from the type of “defensive insecurity” being described above, but at least when I imagine the experiences and expressions they come out close to indistinguishable. I can also imagine trying to retain a feeling of security on the inside (likely at great mental cost) while play-acting the defensiveness in the above context, but that seems like a very noncentral case.
Now for extra fun, imagine this being simultaneously watched by people whose main experience is in a different cultural regime where (perhaps due to the above type of control being uncommon and frowned upon) they can more reasonably justify defensiveness as evidence in favor of guilt, except you don’t have separate private channels to those people and to the people above—possibly because you don’t even know which subset of people is which—and everything you do is being interpreted by both.
I agree that the thing you’re arguing against has the challenges that you’re pointing at, in contexts like those. I’m suggesting something different.
What is the “secure response”? One where you try outwardly to retain a certain kind of dignity?
One where you’re not doing the whole “Oh no! Don’t look at the evidence, because if you do you might think I’m bad!” thing—or, more realistically, not doing the “Don’t listen to him he’s lying!”/”No, you’re wrong, I’m innocent!” type thing. Not flinching from the evidence, but rather being present with it and doing something without pushing it away.
There are a lot of different things one could do securely, but here I’m pointing at one in particular which is relevant when people think you’re actually guilty—even if they’re not being particularly fair when accusing you of stealing cookies or whatever.
Let’s go through your hypothetical line by line, giving names for easy reference:
Bob: Wait, you thought that was a rule, not a request to be less messy?
This line as stated is a bit ambiguous. Is the speaker here purely confused and curious, or are they also kinda conveying “Because if so, that’s kinda stupid, right?”?
If it’s the latter, or looks like it might be the latter, then it makes sense that your next line might follow.
Frank: What the hell kind of nitpick is that? Stop arguing stupid semantics! Since when should I even have to ask Your Highness for basic decency?
Frank has clearly communicated that he sees Bob as making an unfair argument, rather than being genuinely curious, and that he feels condescended to and unfairly treated by Bob.
If Bob isn’t driven to defensiveness out of insecurity, and he actually cares about Frank’s point of view here, he might say something like:
Bob: I’m sorry it came off like I was arguing. I don’t mean it that way, and I’m not even disagreeing necessarily. I’m just genuinely confused because the distinction seems really important here, and I would have expected you to agree. Do you not think the distinction matters here? What am I missing?
This response helps to disambiguate the first response, and to show that it really was a sincere attempt to understand Frank’s perspective here.
In contrast, if Bob had said the other line, it would also have helped disambiguate, albeit in a different direction:
Bob: “Do you actually think that messiness is correlated with thievery, even after conditioning on honesty?
In this context, where this line is coming instead of actually addressing Franks concerns, it shows pretty compellingly that Bob doesn’t find Franks perspective worthy of addressing. It also shows that even when Bob knows that Frank is going to take it as an insult to his intelligence, he wants to do more of that. So, confirming that “You realize how dumb that is, right?” interpretation.
Neither are insecure responses, but one is much more respectful and the other is much more provocative.
In the inconvenient world that I’m currently imagining from which I generated the above dialogue, screwing around with things like ‘evidence’, or even acting calm (thus implying that the rules (which every non-evil person can infer from their heart, right?) are not a threat to you or that you think you’re above them—see also, some uses of “god-fearing” as a prerequisite for “acceptable” in religious contexts), is breaking the social script.
So let’s look at what makes these situations so difficult. These people are clearly very sensitive to implication that you might be “above them”, and simultaneously can’t handle concepts like ‘evidence’. But like… are you not above people who can’t handle concepts like ‘evidence’, in some important way? In your mind are you really on equal footing, if we’re being completely honest here? I certainly couldn’t blame you for having that view of things, if you do. At the same time, can you see why maybe it’s reasonable for them to feel talked down to if you do what you’d describe as “Calmly explain that we should look at the evidence”?
It can be extremely difficult to navigate these situations without pissing people off when the people in question are simultaneously very sensitive to hints of condescension and also seemingly unable to grasp the basics. So when you say things like “Wait, you thought that was a rule?” they’re going to hear that as “Wait, you’re that dumb!?” and respond with hostility like “What the hell kind of nitpick is that?”. And honestly, they might not even be entirely wrong to read it that way.
One way to respond to this is to double down on “Well, their rules are stupid, and I am above them, so I can be secure in the fact that they can’t hurt me”. And if you’re right, then that’s probably better than subjecting yourself to their stupid rules in the first place. But if you aren’t, then they’re going to be quite motivated to hold you accountable for your hubris—as they should!
So I totally agree that this kind of secure response invites these kinds of problems. And that’s why I was suggesting the other direction, for cases like this.
As in, actually respect their judgement. Even if they don’t use the same language as you, there are going to be reasons they believe things. Even if you think you know that they’re wrong and why they go wrong, you can choose to find out instead. To ask what they think because you want to understand where they’re coming from, rather than as a ploy to highlight how stupid they are. If they take it that way, you can listen, take them seriously enough to check for any legitimacy that their interpretation might have, whether maybe you were actually a little more judgy than you meant to be, and get back on track telling them honestly that you don’t see them as dumb, you just don’t understand their perspective yet.
This is the opposite direction of “using big words to distract”, and the only time you’re trying to get on trial for something else is when you honestly believe that’s their real gripe with you. So it’s not an attempt to distract but an offering to submit to their judgement more than they were even asking for. And if that doesn’t come across at first pass, you can clarify that too: “Okay, so it is the cookie you’re most mad at me for? I know you’re mad for legitimate reason, I just want to make sure I’m addressing what’s most important to you first”. Rather than the security coming from “Lol, I’m so above you I’m untouchable (try me!)”, it’s coming from “You wouldn’t stay mad at me unless I’m doing something wrong, so I don’t have to defend myself. I trust you”.
When doing this, you’re not pleading guilty to anything you’re not guilty of, nor are you pushing away their perspectives to focus on promoting the idea that you’re innocent. Because you’re genuinely interested in their perspective, and you’re actually respecting them, they’re going to tend to feel more respected than when you tell they’re wrong/dishonest/whatever without even considering and acknowledging their perspective first.
It’s going to be difficult to pull off if you’re secretly thinking “Man, these are the lies I have to tell to get along with these dummies”, but when it’s genuine it shines through. Not immediately, necessarily, for the same reason that an abused dog doesn’t instantly trust its new owner. It takes a significant amount of evidence to overcome rationally formed priors of abuse/condescension/etc, so if you judge things after the second back and forth it won’t look great. In this one, the dog is kinda biting her, and the woman was expecting to get bit for real. If you only watch the first few back and forths, it’s easy to walk away judging it as “Man, that lady wouldn’t leave the dog alone”/”The dog didn’t like that”/”That wasn’t working”. Watch a bit longer though, and you’ll see that the evidence was being tracked all along. Certainly to better outcomes than if she defensively scolded the dog for snapping at her unfairly.
It’s true that this tends to break the social scripts regardless, but in a good way that side steps rather than engages in conflict. For example, one time my wife accidentally cut in a drive through line, and the guy she cut in front of got super pissed and started yelling at her. When her response was just “Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t see you. Want me to back out so you can have your spot in line back?”, he immediately had his foot in his mouth in recognition of “Fuck, I’m the asshole here, for not considering the possibility of an innocent mistake”—which I think is pretty safe to say wasn’t part of the script he was running in his head. Technically that one is kinda admitting guilt, but only admitting what was true, which was only an innocent mistake not “deserving to get yelled at” (hence the foot in mouth), and iirc not even one he thought was worth backing out to correct after she acknowledged it.
Does that make more sense, or do you have more pushback?
Defensiveness is a signal that you’re not confident in your innocence because you feel the need to defend it, thus there might be some question as to whether you’re guilty, thus it’s evidence that raises the odds that you are guilty. After all, if you weren’t guilty, you wouldn’t need to defend yourself, so defending yourself must make it more likely that you are guilty, even if you aren’t. I think this is just normal conservation of evidence, even if it doesn’t logically follow that defending oneself implies guilt.
This seems wrong to me? If someone says “X abused me” and X says nothing to defend themselves or refute it, people are likely to take the lack of a defense as an admission of guilt.
Defensiveness isn’t proof that someone isn’t confidence in their innocence, because as you say, “it’s enough for them to be afraid that others might believe them guilty”. At the same time, what justifies that fear?
Say you bump into someone in public and they act like you’re a jerk for it. You could react defensively and say “I’m not a jerk, YOU are a jerk you jerk!”. Or you could just say “I’m sorry about that. Are you okay? I screwed up by looking the other way because I heard someone call my name, and I hadn’t seen you there. I guess I need to stop before looking in the future, even if the path looks clear.”
The latter isn’t “defensive” and also does nothing to defend against the accusations directly. But by owning up to everything you can find that you did wrong, you’re demonstrating that you’re not a jerk. And in the process of doing that, it necessarily comes out that “everything you did wrong” isn’t much, and that the other fool walked in front of you without looking himself. So now he looks like a jerk, and you look innocent. Which obviously was what was going to happen, since we knew from the start that you’re not a jerk so of course that’s what the evidence is going to point to. The difference is between “Don’t listen to that! The evidence will mislead you!” and “The totality evidence can’t make me look bad unless I am bad, so lets look at the evidence”.
When someone is showing you a fear that looking at the evidence will leave you thinking they’re bad, this implies a belief that they are indeed bad—at least by your interpretation, which is obviously the one that matters to you.
This belief isn’t necessarily reflectively coherent, and people often flinch out of insecurity even when their beliefs would predictably cohere to “innocent”, but it’s also not crazy to see someone implying that you might think they’re guilty if you were to look at the evidence, and take this as (imperfect) evidence of guilt. Because the only way that fear can be reflectively stable is if they are guilty. It just depends on the extent to which you can expect the person to have noticed the problems with their own belief structure and have brought them back into coherence, if innocent.
I think this is assuming that the people looking at the evidence can be trusted to make a fair and impartial assessment of it and not jump to any unjustified conclusions?
I do agree that if someone has strong reasons to believe that, and to believe that nobody will be motivated to take any of the information out of context and paint them in a bad light later, etc., then hiding information only makes sense if you are in fact guilty.
But it’s very often the case that people don’t have reason to feel that secure, and have cause to believe that at least part of their audience will jump to conclusions, have all kinds of hostile motives, be inclined to treat one party’s word as intrinsically more trustworthy than the other’s, not have the time or interest to really think it through, etc..
In the kinds of examples that I gave in the original post where I’d gotten defensive despite not feeling guilty, it was exactly because the other party gave signs that they were not inclined to consider the evidence in a balanced way—if they wanted to listen to it at all.
Even if a person I’m talking to trusts me to fairly consider the evidence, if there are any other people witnessing the conversation, those others might still have hostile motives, making my interlocutor defensive. So it’s not even the case that they necessarily expect the evidence to make them look bad by my interpretation, they can expect it to make them look bad by someone else’s interpretation.
Not so much “assuming” as “working to make sure”.
For example, imagine some cookies go missing from the cookie jar, and you immediately jump to the unjustified conclusion that it’s *me* that took the cookies. Maybe because you already dislike me for being too messy of a roommate or something. This doesn’t force me to respond defensively, and I still have the option of responding with genuine curiosity “Wait, what? What leads you to think it was me?”.
What’s your response? Not “I have security camera footage proving it”. Maybe “It’s just the kind of thing you’d do. You’re the one here who doesn’t respect rules”. But I can keep chasing this down, so long as I’m curious: “I don’t follow. Why is this something you think I’d do? What rules?”. Maybe from there to “Wait, you thought that was a *rule*, not a *request* to be less messy?”, which gets quite a bit harder for you to hold onto if indeed there never was any rule. Maybe “Do you actually think that messiness is correlated with thievery, even after conditioning on honesty? Do you think you have reason to believe I’m dishonest?”.
So long as I’m genuinely trying to understand your perspective and not trying to make you look stupid and not credible, it’s hard to avoid getting into why you believe what you believe, and learning whether your initial conclusions were fair, impartial, and justified. Basically, by maintaining strict openness to the evidence, it takes away any motivation and justification you might have had for being unfair to me.
Yes, this is often the case, and it does make navigating these things securely quite difficult at times. This complicates things, but I don’t think it changes the conclusion at all.
I think the first thing to note here is that the bar isn’t “Is there zero chance of secure response failing to exonerate me?” but “Is the secure response less likely to exonerate me?”. Because you can’t ever guarantee zero chance of anything, and the question you actually have to decide on is “Which is my better option here?”.
And when you judge by that bar, defensive insecurity doesn’t come out looking too hot. Because none of those additional difficulties go away just because you flinch defensively. If you proclaim “I didn’t do it! Don’t believe him!” to a hostile audience, for example, that’s not going to automatically cause your audience’s hostile motives to melt away and think “Ah, he didn’t do it!”. In addition to all their other ammunition, now they have “See, he’s getting defensive about it. Guilty conscience!”.
Beyond that, we’d have to get into what’s driving this hostility and these unfair jumps to conclusions—because it’s something. Returning to the cookie jar hypothetical, maybe if I would have been more clearly open to your upset about the mess, it never would have gotten to where you were accusing me of taking cookies from the cookie jar in the first place.
Quoting my previous conclusion here, I don’t think you can actually expect people to notice and fully cohere their belief structures, in general. It’s really hard, and a lot of work, so the default expectation is that there will be quite a lot of ultimately unfounded insecurity driving defensiveness over true innocence.
At the same time, the end of the road of reflection is still security and openness about the evidence when truly innocent and well intentioned. And that matters both because it’s the trail sign to follow when we find ourselves innocent and insecure, and because it’s the trail to help others down when we suspect they are.
Am I missing some context here? Let’s look at this hypothetical conversation, which seems pretty darn plausible to me:
“Wait, you thought that was a rule, not a request to be less messy?”
“What the hell kind of nitpick is that? Stop arguing stupid semantics! Since when should I even have to ask Your Highness for basic decency?”
“Do you actually think that messiness is correlated with thievery, even after conditioning on honesty?”
“What are you even talking about now? Some math shit? That’s what’s really important to you, huh, rather than being a good person who knows when to clean up? Grow up or go live on the street. And don’t take any more of my cookies.”
This is admittedly a strained use of the specific quotations, but I think the directional picture should be clear. Extrapolate to your (least) favorite contested-valence social markers to taste.
Surely this depends on your surroundings?
What is the “secure response”? One where you try outwardly to retain a certain kind of dignity? When you don’t actually have the status security in local social reality, you can’t necessarily get away with that. In the inconvenient world that I’m currently imagining from which I generated the above dialogue, screwing around with things like ‘evidence’, or even acting calm (thus implying that the rules (which every non-evil person can infer from their heart, right?) are not a threat to you or that you think you’re above them—see also, some uses of “god-fearing” as a prerequisite for “acceptable” in religious contexts), is breaking the social script. It’s presumed to be trying to confuse matters or go around the problem (the problem that they have with you; think “skipping out on your court date” as an analogy in a less emotional context), and it gets you the most guaranteed negative judgment because you didn’t even meta-respect what was going on. Your mainline options under that kind of regime can be more like “use a false apology to submit, after which the entire social reality is that You Did It but at least you showed some respect” or “make a counterplay by acting openly defensive, which acts kind of like a double-or-nothing coin flip depending on whether the audience both believes you and believes enough others will believe you to coordinate against the accuser”. (In this context, the audience may culturally share the felt-sense of “don’t try to get all fancy on us” even if their beliefs about your specific guilt may vary.) Naturally, as Kaj_Sotala described above, refusing to say anything at all can be interpreted as a tacit admission, so that doesn’t help either.
“Agitated? Listen to this guy. He’s fucking agitated!” “Well, good. That’s good. You stay that way.”
Maybe you could say that the type of emotional and motivational backing for what “acting defensive” means in that context is substantially different from the type of “defensive insecurity” being described above, but at least when I imagine the experiences and expressions they come out close to indistinguishable. I can also imagine trying to retain a feeling of security on the inside (likely at great mental cost) while play-acting the defensiveness in the above context, but that seems like a very noncentral case.
Now for extra fun, imagine this being simultaneously watched by people whose main experience is in a different cultural regime where (perhaps due to the above type of control being uncommon and frowned upon) they can more reasonably justify defensiveness as evidence in favor of guilt, except you don’t have separate private channels to those people and to the people above—possibly because you don’t even know which subset of people is which—and everything you do is being interpreted by both.
I think we’re talking past each other a bit.
I agree that the thing you’re arguing against has the challenges that you’re pointing at, in contexts like those. I’m suggesting something different.
One where you’re not doing the whole “Oh no! Don’t look at the evidence, because if you do you might think I’m bad!” thing—or, more realistically, not doing the “Don’t listen to him he’s lying!”/”No, you’re wrong, I’m innocent!” type thing. Not flinching from the evidence, but rather being present with it and doing something without pushing it away.
There are a lot of different things one could do securely, but here I’m pointing at one in particular which is relevant when people think you’re actually guilty—even if they’re not being particularly fair when accusing you of stealing cookies or whatever.
Let’s go through your hypothetical line by line, giving names for easy reference:
This line as stated is a bit ambiguous. Is the speaker here purely confused and curious, or are they also kinda conveying “Because if so, that’s kinda stupid, right?”?
If it’s the latter, or looks like it might be the latter, then it makes sense that your next line might follow.
Frank has clearly communicated that he sees Bob as making an unfair argument, rather than being genuinely curious, and that he feels condescended to and unfairly treated by Bob.
If Bob isn’t driven to defensiveness out of insecurity, and he actually cares about Frank’s point of view here, he might say something like:
This response helps to disambiguate the first response, and to show that it really was a sincere attempt to understand Frank’s perspective here.
In contrast, if Bob had said the other line, it would also have helped disambiguate, albeit in a different direction:
In this context, where this line is coming instead of actually addressing Franks concerns, it shows pretty compellingly that Bob doesn’t find Franks perspective worthy of addressing. It also shows that even when Bob knows that Frank is going to take it as an insult to his intelligence, he wants to do more of that. So, confirming that “You realize how dumb that is, right?” interpretation.
Neither are insecure responses, but one is much more respectful and the other is much more provocative.
So let’s look at what makes these situations so difficult. These people are clearly very sensitive to implication that you might be “above them”, and simultaneously can’t handle concepts like ‘evidence’. But like… are you not above people who can’t handle concepts like ‘evidence’, in some important way? In your mind are you really on equal footing, if we’re being completely honest here? I certainly couldn’t blame you for having that view of things, if you do. At the same time, can you see why maybe it’s reasonable for them to feel talked down to if you do what you’d describe as “Calmly explain that we should look at the evidence”?
It can be extremely difficult to navigate these situations without pissing people off when the people in question are simultaneously very sensitive to hints of condescension and also seemingly unable to grasp the basics. So when you say things like “Wait, you thought that was a rule?” they’re going to hear that as “Wait, you’re that dumb!?” and respond with hostility like “What the hell kind of nitpick is that?”. And honestly, they might not even be entirely wrong to read it that way.
One way to respond to this is to double down on “Well, their rules are stupid, and I am above them, so I can be secure in the fact that they can’t hurt me”. And if you’re right, then that’s probably better than subjecting yourself to their stupid rules in the first place. But if you aren’t, then they’re going to be quite motivated to hold you accountable for your hubris—as they should!
So I totally agree that this kind of secure response invites these kinds of problems. And that’s why I was suggesting the other direction, for cases like this.
As in, actually respect their judgement. Even if they don’t use the same language as you, there are going to be reasons they believe things. Even if you think you know that they’re wrong and why they go wrong, you can choose to find out instead. To ask what they think because you want to understand where they’re coming from, rather than as a ploy to highlight how stupid they are. If they take it that way, you can listen, take them seriously enough to check for any legitimacy that their interpretation might have, whether maybe you were actually a little more judgy than you meant to be, and get back on track telling them honestly that you don’t see them as dumb, you just don’t understand their perspective yet.
This is the opposite direction of “using big words to distract”, and the only time you’re trying to get on trial for something else is when you honestly believe that’s their real gripe with you. So it’s not an attempt to distract but an offering to submit to their judgement more than they were even asking for. And if that doesn’t come across at first pass, you can clarify that too: “Okay, so it is the cookie you’re most mad at me for? I know you’re mad for legitimate reason, I just want to make sure I’m addressing what’s most important to you first”. Rather than the security coming from “Lol, I’m so above you I’m untouchable (try me!)”, it’s coming from “You wouldn’t stay mad at me unless I’m doing something wrong, so I don’t have to defend myself. I trust you”.
When doing this, you’re not pleading guilty to anything you’re not guilty of, nor are you pushing away their perspectives to focus on promoting the idea that you’re innocent. Because you’re genuinely interested in their perspective, and you’re actually respecting them, they’re going to tend to feel more respected than when you tell they’re wrong/dishonest/whatever without even considering and acknowledging their perspective first.
It’s going to be difficult to pull off if you’re secretly thinking “Man, these are the lies I have to tell to get along with these dummies”, but when it’s genuine it shines through. Not immediately, necessarily, for the same reason that an abused dog doesn’t instantly trust its new owner. It takes a significant amount of evidence to overcome rationally formed priors of abuse/condescension/etc, so if you judge things after the second back and forth it won’t look great. In this one, the dog is kinda biting her, and the woman was expecting to get bit for real. If you only watch the first few back and forths, it’s easy to walk away judging it as “Man, that lady wouldn’t leave the dog alone”/”The dog didn’t like that”/”That wasn’t working”. Watch a bit longer though, and you’ll see that the evidence was being tracked all along. Certainly to better outcomes than if she defensively scolded the dog for snapping at her unfairly.
It’s true that this tends to break the social scripts regardless, but in a good way that side steps rather than engages in conflict. For example, one time my wife accidentally cut in a drive through line, and the guy she cut in front of got super pissed and started yelling at her. When her response was just “Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t see you. Want me to back out so you can have your spot in line back?”, he immediately had his foot in his mouth in recognition of “Fuck, I’m the asshole here, for not considering the possibility of an innocent mistake”—which I think is pretty safe to say wasn’t part of the script he was running in his head. Technically that one is kinda admitting guilt, but only admitting what was true, which was only an innocent mistake not “deserving to get yelled at” (hence the foot in mouth), and iirc not even one he thought was worth backing out to correct after she acknowledged it.
Does that make more sense, or do you have more pushback?